Question about military uniforms

[jtfanclub]

Where did this thread derail? All I wanted to know is what this colourful thingy on the general's uniform was...

That got answered on the first page, in detail. Wasn't anything to say on that subject after that....

[Trinidad]

Where did this thread derail? All I wanted to know is what this colourful thingy on the general's uniform was...

I guess Mike had a hard time believing that you truely didn't know what the 'colourful thingy' was...

 

For the record, I do believe you. Mike happened to grow up in a country where the military is on a pedestal and you didn't.

 

 

Another question: What is the 'colourful thingy' actually called?

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

Whatever the case, we are in debt to those who have chosen to serve.

I disagree.

 

The point is that most businesses create their own market. The military is certainly no exception. But we would be better off without the products that the military provides us with.

 

Rik

[luke warm]

Whatever the case, we are in debt to those who have chosen to serve.

I disagree.

 

The point is that most businesses create their own market. The military is certainly no exception. But we would be better off without the products that the military provides us with.

 

Rik

i don't think you've thought this out very well... are you saying our freedom wan't won, and later preserved, by our military?

[kenberg]

Whatever the case, we are in debt to those who have chosen to serve.

I disagree.

 

The point is that most businesses create their own market. The military is certainly no exception. But we would be better off without the products that the military provides us with.

 

Rik

We would be better off if there was no need for the military. But you think that there is no need? It seems to me that the history of the world provides more than enough reasons to be cautious.

 

Perhaps I misunderstand you. If you advocate restraint in the use of military force we agree. If you are suggesting that security is based on a strong economy and a way of life that will draw support from others, we agree. If you are suggesting we could wisely disband the military and close down the Pentagon, we do not agree.

[Trinidad]

Whatever the case, we are in debt to those who have chosen to serve.

I disagree.

 

The point is that most businesses create their own market. The military is certainly no exception. But we would be better off without the products that the military provides us with.

 

Rik

i don't think you've thought this out very well... are you saying our freedom wan't won, and later preserved, by our military?

Whose freedom and free from whom? Are you talking about this from a US perspective: (the Boston tea party)? Or from a global perspective (the time that Earth was liberated from the Martians by the Earth military)?

 

I fully agree with you that the freedom in the US was won and preserved by the US military.

 

 

But what good does that do to the other 95% of the Earth's population?

 

 

If you look at it from a local perspective you could perceive that the local military protected the local freedom. However, if you look from a global perspective, the invention of the military (and military conflicts) was probably the biggest disaster that ever happened to Earth. Imagine where we would be if the money globally spent on the military was spent on drinking water, health care or, heck, Coca Cola (or playing bridge :) )? Wouldn't our freedom (everybody's freedom) be much larger?

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

Whatever the case, we are in debt to those who have chosen to serve.

I disagree.

 

The point is that most businesses create their own market. The military is certainly no exception. But we would be better off without the products that the military provides us with.

 

Rik

We would be better off if there was no need for the military. But you think that there is no need? It seems to me that the history of the world provides more than enough reasons to be cautious.

 

Perhaps I misunderstand you. If you advocate restraint in the use of military force we agree. If you are suggesting that security is based on a strong economy and a way of life that will draw support from others, we agree. If you are suggesting we could wisely disband the military and close down the Pentagon, we do not agree.

Obviously, I am sketching the situation very black-white. I think we basically agree. (Closing down the Pentagon right now would not be a wise move.)

 

But my point is that armed forces should strive to make themselves redundant. (I am sure that you and I agree there.)

 

But just like a plumber, a weather man or someone selling encyclopedias, a soldier and a general want to keep their job. As a result, just like any other trade, the military itself is striving for sustainability rather than redundancy for plain simple economic reasons.

 

A door-to-door encyclopedia salesmen striving for sustainability isn't that bad. It results in more encyclopedias than we need. It's not optimal because we could spend the money on something more useful than excess encyclopedias, but it's far from a problem. But the strive of the military for sustainability results in more war than we need. That ìs a problem.

 

Larger organizations have stronger interests and stronger interests will make it easier for the organization to remain sustainable. If we strive to redundancy of the armed forces we will need to keep them small. When someone chooses to serve, he is reinforcing the military sustaining mechanism, rather than working towards redundancy. Therefore, (to get back to your first statement) I am definitely not in debt to him.

 

Rik

[luke warm]

Whatever the case, we are in debt to those who have chosen to serve.

I disagree.

 

The point is that most businesses create their own market. The military is certainly no exception. But we would be better off without the products that the military provides us with.

 

Rik

i don't think you've thought this out very well... are you saying our freedom wan't won, and later preserved, by our military?

Whose freedom and free from whom? Are you talking about this from a US perspective: (the Boston tea party)? Or from a global perspective (the time that Earth was liberated from the Martians by the Earth military)?

ours (americans) and from anyone who wants to take it

But what good does that do to the other 95% of the Earth's population?

some want freedom, some don't.. to say the military can't or won't avail a country whose population wants freedom (and whose military backs that position) seems fallacious to me

If you look at it from a local perspective you could perceive that the local military protected the local freedom. However, if you look from a global perspective, the invention of the military (and military conflicts) was probably the biggest disaster that ever happened to Earth. Imagine where we would be if the money globally spent on the military was spent on drinking water, health care or, heck, Coca Cola (or playing bridge  :) )? Wouldn't our freedom (everybody's freedom) be much larger?

not necessarily... even if it's true that various militaries have performed in a less than stellar way, and i think it's obviously true, i don't think your conclusion follows - necessarily

[jdonn]

some want freedom, some don't.. to say the military can't or won't avail a country whose population wants freedom (and whose military backs that position) seems fallacious to me

But isn't this country on the whole strongly opposed to the current, what shall I call it, military mission?

[kenberg]

I'll have to disagree with this freedom agenda. Yes we favor freedom, more or less, and here and there. However, if in 2003 Mr. Bush had gone before congress and the nation and said that we need to invade Iraq to bring them freedom he would have been thoroughly rebuffed. The argument was that Iraq posed a danger that had to be dealt with. Yes he also mentioned freedom, politicians do that, but that was not the logic behind our action and it would have received little support if it had been.

 

It has always been so. Much is often made of our allied liberation of France in 1944. It was of course a great accomplishment. But the Germans rolled into Paris in, I believe, May of 1940. The US entered the war in December of 1941. The reason for our entry was Pearl Harbor, and the alliance between Japan and Germany, not our overwhelming desire to go rescue our friends the French, or the English either for that matter. (By the way, most conservatives at the time were very opposed to helping anyone.) In 1944, France was liberated because it lay between England, where our troops were, and Germany, where we wanted to go. If Norway had lain in the path, we would have liberated Norway.

 

I consider myself a loyal American who honors his country. But we should not pretend history is different from what it is. We went into Iraq for strategic reasons, not very well thought out strategic reasons at that. It had very little to do with wanting to bring freedom to our friends the Iraqis. We now have some responsibility, and considerable self-interest, in leaving a somewhat stable society behind when we pull out. I hope we can do it. I also hope we think things through a little better in the future.

[han]

Since the Han dynasty.....

Insert funny han comment here __________

When heroes fight on both sides,

Then tell me what is brav'ry worth?

The coward bright, quickly hides,

And digs the graves deep in the earth.

 

(Old Chinese Poem)

[Trinidad]

Just for the record: I am fully agreeing with Ken's post [Apr 11 2008, 09:59 PM].

 

Rik

[jdonn]

BTW I just saw a large portion of the press conference Bush had in Russia, it's the first time I have heard him speak in probably a year or two. He can barely construct a logical sentence about whatever the topic is. A high school valedictorian could have done a better job. Putin would speak about the missile issue and relations between the countries and their goals and such, and Bush would say something like "I like Vladimir, he's a stand up guy. I just met his successor too, seems like a straightforward fellow. I like straightforward fellows. I think I can talk about this nucular thing with him." except with more stumbling. It gave me a tummy ache. :)

 

(Sorry was only semi on topic)

[luke warm]

some want freedom, some don't.. to say the military can't or won't avail a country whose population wants freedom (and whose military backs that position) seems fallacious to me

But isn't this country on the whole strongly opposed to the current, what shall I call it, military mission?

yes... some in different ways though... for example, some were against it originally but now know we can't just pull out overnight... some were for it originally, found out there were lies told and then became opponents... but that just goes to my last point above

[onoway]

When I hear people speak about war, I think of the time (I believe ww1) when the Germans and the English in a battle, stopped for Christmas. Someone made the first overture,they crossed no man's land, and instead of shelling and shooting each other, had a day of socializing, sharing, singing and celebrating Christmas. The next day they went back to trying to kill one another. I didn't believe this story when I first heard it, but apparently it's true...

[jdonn]

some want freedom, some don't.. to say the military can't or won't avail a country whose population wants freedom (and whose military backs that position) seems fallacious to me

But isn't this country on the whole strongly opposed to the current, what shall I call it, military mission?

yes... some in different ways though... for example, some were against it originally but now know we can't just pull out overnight...

I don't know anyone whose beliefs have followed that path. As far as I can see, anyone who believes we shouldn't have been there but can't just pull out now is someone who believed we should go in at the beginning and then needed another (lame - IMO) excuse to justify their earlier belief.

[Al_U_Card]

Just ask the Iraqis, or the Vietnamese, or the Amerindians......

 

IF there was no oil (or opium or some other critical and expensive commodity) there, then would the US even be interested?

 

YOUR problem (the people of the USofA) is that you now have a law that says that you can be arrested and your property confiscated if you impede the prosecution of the the "war" in Iraq.

 

Land of the free? btw how is the brave going? (or when)

[cherdano]

some want freedom, some don't.. to say the military can't or won't avail a country whose population wants freedom (and whose military backs that position) seems fallacious to me

But isn't this country on the whole strongly opposed to the current, what shall I call it, military mission?

yes... some in different ways though... for example, some were against it originally but now know we can't just pull out overnight... some were for it originally, found out there were lies told and then became opponents... but that just goes to my last point above

Huh? I am very strongly against the Iraq war, but I also believe it would be adding another mistake to pull out over night immediately. The US does have some responsibility for the mess it created.

 

This doesn't mean that my opinion changed at all.

[rona_]

Another question: What is the 'colourful thingy' actually called?

 

Rik

 

A "fruit salad".

[Trinidad]

I am fully with Arend.

 

I was strongly opposed to the invasion of Iraq. It should have never happened. But once it started, continuing was the least of evils. Now, the USA will have to go all the way. They created the mess, they are responsible for the clean up.

 

For me, pulling out of Iraq now is the equivalent of causing a traffic accident and running away, leaving the victims behind.

 

Rik

[jdonn]

I am fully with Arend.

 

I was strongly opposed to the invasion of Iraq. It should have never happened. But once it started, continuing was the least of evils. Now, the USA will have to go all the way. They created the mess, they are responsible for the clean up.

 

For me, pulling out of Iraq now is the equivalent of causing a traffic accident and running away, leaving the victims behind.

 

Rik

I think there is a misconception that the view is to pull the troops out the next day or something. Even a quick pullout would take over a year I believe, so it wouldn't be some sort of immediate abandonment.

 

When you say "going all the way" I don't know exactly what you mean, but the way things have been throughout this war I'm sure it would take decades. How is that worth it?

[Trinidad]

When you say "going all the way" I don't know exactly what you mean, but the way things have been throughout this war I'm sure it would take decades. How is that worth it?

"Going all the way" means leave the country better than it was before the invasion. It's easier to break things than to repair. So yes, it's going to take decades.

 

As to: How is that worth it...

 

If you invade a country and claim to do that to improve the lives of its inhabitants you cannot possibly consider leaving the country shred to pieces and with refugees spread all over the world. You would be declaring bankruptcy on your integrity. Is that what the USA wants to show to the countries in the Middle East? Can you put a price on that?

 

Imagine going into someone's house to help them unprompted, with nothing but the best of intentions. In the process you are destroying the house, ruining the garden, killing the son and separating the parents in a bitter conflict. The daughter runs to the neighbors and the baby is left without care. Would you consider picking up the family picture, blowing off the dust, putting it back on what's left of the mantle, walking out of the house, going on with your live as if nothing happened?

 

(If this would be a scene from Monty Python, you would at least hear John Cleese say: 'ahum... err.. sorry... err... chaps'. That should give an idea of how absurd this situation is.)

 

Rik

[jdonn]

Where do people get these analogies that don't fit at all? Our good intentions were some combination of lies and incorrect facts by our government, their country was in bad shape before so we weren't exactly destroying the paradise you make it seem, and you tell me the middle east country other than Israel that wants us anywhere in the area. What is the main reason that the people we call terrorists hate us so much? Because we are in their areas! We are paying trillions of dollars and thousands of lives to ensure that we will get attacked again and again.

 

Does it strike you that more Americans have died in Iraq than in the 9/11 attack? And the answer is to stay there forever?

 

When I said "How is that worth it?" I phrased it as a question because the answer is so obvious. But I guess to some it isn't....

 

Edit since I see Helene's post below: Yes it's well known as a sunk cost in basic economics, and is perhaps the most common irrational thought process humans have.

[helene_t]

As to: How is that worth it...

 

If you invade a country and claim to do that to improve the lives of its inhabitants you cannot possibly consider leaving the country shred to pieces and with refugees spread all over the world. You would be declaring bankruptcy on your integrity.

This is a classical fallacy. Bygones are bygones. The integrity of the US government is already bankrupt and there's nothing that can be done about that, but fortunately it's irrelevant. The question is: what are the costs and benefits of staying in Iraq, compared to the option of leaving? This is all that matters. How Iraq was before the invasion, and how it might have been in the absence of an invasion, is irrelevant.

[Winstonm]

If you invade a country and claim to do that to improve the lives of its inhabitants you cannot possibly consider leaving the country shred to pieces and with refugees spread all over the world.

 

Begin rant.

 

I am fed up with this type of "free pass" non-critical psedo-lie granted this administration for its invasion. There was never a consideration to "invade to improve the lives of Iraqis". Where the hell were you in 2002-2003, during the runup to the invasion? On Mars?

 

Here, in their own words, are the reasons the Bush administration gave for the necessity of invasion: (emphasis added).

 

1.

On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' "

 

2.

In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year." A few days later, similar findings were also included in a much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction — an analysis that hadn't been done in years, as the intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House hadn't requested it.

 

3)

In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: "Sure." In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda." What's more, an earlier DIA assessment said that "the nature of the regime's relationship with  Al Qaeda is unclear."

 

4)

On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush declared: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team's final report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.

 

5)

On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement "probably is a hoax."

 

This is more than simply "poor intelligence". This is taking poor intelligence and spinning it into a gospel-like truth to justify an invasion. I suggest we remember how we got into Iraq rather than worrying so much about how to get out and the consequences of withdrawl. Go or stay, it will be ugly and brutal.

 

But to sugar coat the crap we were fed as "poor intelligence" or "to bring democracy to the middle east" or to "improve the lives of Iraqis" is an insult to MY intelligence. We invaded for only one reason - ONE ONLY: We were told that it was imperative to invade to protect ourselves from imminent terrorists attack, sponsored by Iraq, which could include a nuclear device.

 

And how much truth was in that declaration? None.

 

Simply poor intelligence? No. At intelligence meetings, both pros and cons are aired - the decision had to have been made to completely and totally ignore any contradictory information. But the one thing it was never, ever about was: "mproving the lives of Iraqis".

 

Give me a break.

 

End of rant.